At 6/10/2010 1:36:13 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:I'd get a bonus.

I wonder if i could negotiate a new salary. There's the standard salary that Innomen currently gets, then there is the salary of 1.5% higher if you want him sober in front of the client.

I don't think so. The company you work for will probably fire you if you are wasted while in front of a client. You'll be miserable and the company will feel better with one less drunk ;)

And the firefighters?

Well, it's critical that firefighters don't show up to a flaming house while drunk. It's hard to fire firefighters because there can be an emergency at any time. So, the people in charge want to make sure that their firefighters have sort of an incentive to remain clean while on duty.

Most firefighters stay clean while on the job, anyway. Most of these men have pride in their work and don't want to be responsible for another person's death simply because of alcohol's influence.

At 6/10/2010 1:43:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:I'd say firefighters should be sober regardless. It would probably be pretty hard to do their job while intoxicated and firefighters can pretty much be on call at any time.

At 6/10/2010 1:43:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:I'd say firefighters should be sober regardless. It would probably be pretty hard to do their job while intoxicated and firefighters can pretty much be on call at any time.

How much does this 1.5% bonus really amount to? Anyway this is stupid (for city workers). But anyone who knows anything about the fire department - especially in a city like Boston - knows that drinking is a problem for those guys whether on the job or not. It's just part of their culture per se. I know a fireman and he says all they really do while at the station is drink and watch porn; occasionally cook and hang out (like play pool and stuff). I mean think about it -- how often is there really a fire? Most of the things the fire dept. does is get cats out of trees and stuff or deal with electrical things. It seems silly to reward people for a sober lifestyle when it's one they probably already live. I highly doubt that 1.5% is enough of a bonus to change the mind of those who drink heavily.

At 6/10/2010 1:43:33 PM, mongeese wrote:If the firefighters only drink on their own time, this seems like a good policy, but we should never have firefighters drinking on the job.

If they were only drinking on their own time it wouldn't be in the contract.

But what if they were drinking and then got called into an emergency?

They have days off like everyone else.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

This is not about a sobriety test to make sure the firefighters aren't intoxicated at work (which I would approve of). It is a mandatory annual drugs test (presumably a blood test) to make sure they are 'clean', which I regard as a serious invasion of privacy.

At 6/11/2010 11:18:57 AM, feverish wrote:After reading the OP's link http://www.myfoxboston.com... I think a lot of people have got the wrong end of the stick here.

This is not about a sobriety test to make sure the firefighters aren't intoxicated at work (which I would approve of). It is a mandatory annual drugs test (presumably a blood test) to make sure they are 'clean', which I regard as a serious invasion of privacy.

It's about a long history of being found drunk on the job by many of the BFD. It has been a serious problem. In the collective bargaining by the union, they were given the incentive, or bonus, of 1.5% if they were to submit to a urine test.

At 6/11/2010 11:18:57 AM, feverish wrote:After reading the OP's link http://www.myfoxboston.com... I think a lot of people have got the wrong end of the stick here.

This is not about a sobriety test to make sure the firefighters aren't intoxicated at work (which I would approve of). It is a mandatory annual drugs test (presumably a blood test) to make sure they are 'clean', which I regard as a serious invasion of privacy.

It's about a long history of being found drunk on the job by many of the BFD. It has been a serious problem. In the collective bargaining by the union, they were given the incentive, or bonus, of 1.5% if they were to submit to a urine test.

But how is an annual urine test to establish if they ever get drunk on the job?

"The contract includes a 1.5 percent bonus for mandatory drug and alcohol testing - compensation that won't kick in until June 30, 2011. New firefighters would receive the 1.5 percent bonus if they undergo an annual physical, ability test and drug test."

It seems to me that this is less about sobriety on the job than it is about filtering weed smokers and the like out of the service.

A breathalyser or sobriety test in the station, now that I would approve of.

At 6/11/2010 11:18:57 AM, feverish wrote:After reading the OP's link http://www.myfoxboston.com... I think a lot of people have got the wrong end of the stick here.

This is not about a sobriety test to make sure the firefighters aren't intoxicated at work (which I would approve of). It is a mandatory annual drugs test (presumably a blood test) to make sure they are 'clean', which I regard as a serious invasion of privacy.

It's about a long history of being found drunk on the job by many of the BFD. It has been a serious problem. In the collective bargaining by the union, they were given the incentive, or bonus, of 1.5% if they were to submit to a urine test.

But how is an annual urine test to establish if they ever get drunk on the job?

"The contract includes a 1.5 percent bonus for mandatory drug and alcohol testing - compensation that won't kick in until June 30, 2011. New firefighters would receive the 1.5 percent bonus if they undergo an annual physical, ability test and drug test."

It seems to me that this is less about sobriety on the job than it is about filtering weed smokers and the like out of the service.

A breathalyser or sobriety test in the station, now that I would approve of.

Drugs are just as bad as booze in this case. I mean, you can't put out a fire while singing 'Yellow Submarine' at the top of your lungs and failing to put on your flip-flops.